In a funny kinda way, Avri's position is the practical outcome. Save and except we should endeavour to add meaningful protections for the poor slobs caught in the net. Let me explain.
We say we are for a free market. But those of us who would have been informed by practical experience know the market is not always a sage in operation. So we expect, at minimum, some baseline protections in place to mediate adverse consumer impact.
Especially in instant case where the domain name market is and remains a privileged space, booted largely on mercantilist economic precepts; some vital resource is expropriated and a license is granted to exploit one corner of the market for this resource by paying an exclusionary license fee. Like it or not, there is a duty of care imposed on the one granting the license. And that duty devolves to minimizing harm from market interactions originating from the licensee.
ICANN gives and ICANN receives. So we have in place data escrow and archiving concordats, registry failover processes and even commercial successor planning frameworks in place. All good. But not sufficient. For these are generally tacking moreso to the operational stability and reliability of the DNS, with consumer protection a poor second, if at all a thought.
Sure, you simply cannot protect every consumer from every fool choice/action they freely take. But we expect some will be taken in blissful ignorance. So as the regulator, I feel ICANN is duty-bound to full disclosure and dissemination of all the relevant known caveats; kind of a master 'caveat emptor' if you will.
-Carlton